Potential future display preferences:

Text at 2x scale at 4k resolutions should look like it does at 1080p, but smoother - if you can tell the difference at all at that screen size, otherwise you’re just wasting battery power on the GPU and display.

Yeah, because you would scale things.
Try not to scale things.
The only difference is “text look better” but for someone that deliberately went and turns off cleartype and don’t bother with any type of anti aliasing, I can’t understand.
Perhaps because they had never tried to use any pixel manipulation software.

Apparently you missed all the complaints that 2256×1504 isn’t usable without scaling.

What pixel manipulation software is usable without zoom? If you just mean stuff designed to a pixel grid… that should (yes, some badly behaved software may gratuitously apply smoothing) look blocky at worst with 2x scaling. With non-integer scaling, however, it’s much more likely to look like trash. These days, though, it’s not hard to produce stuff that looks good at 2x.

Personally, I think it’s easier to read text at a given physical size when it’s at higher DPI, which is why I’d rather have higher resolution… but 3000×2000 @ 2x is also going to give you larger text compared to 1920×1280, albeit with less “real estate” (although whether you can use 2k 13" effectively already seems to be questionable). In my experience, 3000×2000 13" seems like a good compromise. I’d still prefer 1920×1280 over 2256×1504; IMO, Framework made the worst possible choice there.

p.s. You get a :grinning: out of me re: your previous comment, but in my defense, “integral” can mean “of, pertaining to, or being an integer”.

That said, what I’d really like is a 14" 3300×2200 (Asus has these) with an extra column on the keyboard. (Hmm, I wonder if it would be possible to somehow Frankenstein a Framework mainboard with an Asus screen and keyboard… although Asus still has those awful half-height arrow keys…)

1 Like

From my understanding, the mainboard in intended to be “modifiable” and “reusable”. I figure so long as you can find a way to mount it into a chassis, and the panel ribbon pinout is the same as the framework (I’m pretty sure these are somewhat universal (?)) then in theory it should all work. You might have some issues with IO, especially considering the Framework mainboard would only have 4 USB-C outs while most laptops have an HDMI, maybe an ethernet jack, normal USB, etc. Perhaps you could remove them and find a way to mount some custom USB-C headers in their place?

I’ve definitely thought about something similar to this, wondering if I could put my framework mainboard into an older 15" chassis I have lying around with an old Pentium 3 that’s basically useless to me and I can’t manage to sell. Everything else in it works, I would just need to find a way to mount it (but I wouldn’t be opposed to literally hot gluing it in) my main issue was again the IO issue. Everything else should be mostly universal as far as I know.

There is a thread (i’m too lazy to find it this moment, will link it later) where nrp or someone from Framework names the exact pinout being used by the display

I can use 2K 13 at 1x quite well. It’s the “goldilock” for me.
I think that is around 170 ppi if not wrong. Im boarderline comfy with that.
I set my 3K touch to 1600x900 which is a 141 ppi.
It also depend on the quality of the backlight. If the panel is very constant and not flashing I can keep it more dim and closer to me than a bad panel.
The 15 inch I currently had a measly 1366x768 and thus an “atrocious” 107mm ppi. Things appear gargantuan, thus I can keep the screen much much further away.

That’s the problem with using this 15 inch – everything else feels small. You can’t get a comfy posture with an external keyboard. Although I would be then complaining about my chair.
But I used to run 2K 13 inch and is perfectly fine.
2256x1504 have a whoppin 208 ppi, which make sense. You basically need magnifying glasses.

I would say around 150 ppi would be considered a good balance between real estate and eye strain.

Yup, agreed… except I still prefer High DPI. My current machine is ~280, which is to say twice 140, which is right around the “sweet spot” we agree on. I still think those extra pixels make a difference, but maybe we should agree to disagree. Anything in the 180-250 DPI range is just terrible though, at least for a laptop. (It’s okay on a mobile device, but only because that’s far less DPI sensitive.)

Anyway, here are some example DPIs for real world panels:

  • 13" 1920×1080: 170 (a bit high)
  • 13.5" 1920×1280: 170 (a bit high)
  • 13.5" 2256×1504: 200 (just plain bad)
  • 13" 3200×1800: 280 a.k.a. 140@2 (good)
  • 13.5" 3000×2000: 267 a.k.a. 134@2 (a bit low)
  • 13.9" 3300×2200: 280 a.k.a. 140@2 (good)

A 15", 3:2 4k screen would be 154@2, also right around the “sweet spot”. Unfortunately, I don’t believe any such panels exist at present. (4k 16:9 panels with similar DPI exist, of course, but those extra vertical pixels are really nice!)

1 Like

Also, a display with an EMR digitizer will be awesome.
It’s the only reason why I am still using my 6th gen i5 Fujitsu laptop alongside my i7 Framework.

1 Like

The current resolution and format fits perfectly for me.
A QD-LED/OLED display would be awesome, as well as an E-ink alternative.
The OLED would be amazing for daily work-use, and the E-ink for outdoor use.
Actually I would buy both, to explore the uses, if available (in Europe :wink: )

… OOOOoooooooOOO… …

I have a Wacom One CTL-672. I don’t know such things existed!

Of course, I should know, given Microsoft Surface Stylus . But those uses batteries, so there you go.

And also, because I already have a Wacom One, I don’t necessarily need another one even if it’s built-in and more cool. If we are going to have EMR at least make the laptop a 2-in-1 (which will be problem if you want good performance + cooling)
We can make the screen rotate like the old Thinkpad X220, Dell Latitude XT2 and Hp Elitebook.

Those are absolutely insane. You do have to live with a massive chin and potentially a “knee” behind the bottom half of the hinge, but you can have as thicc a chassis you desire.

Yes, the hinge isn’t the most strongest and they do wear out somewhat quicker than a traditional hinge, but the cost is absolute miniscule if you can replace it yourself and is something I am willing to pay to own one, if one ever existed.

GPD P3 also have such a hinge and is one of the killer-features for me to consider.

I am currently owning a Fujitsu Lifebook T936, and the wacom 2K EMR display on that device is fantastic. With a correct battery-less EMR stylus(I got mine for like 10 bucks on Taobao), you can get a 1024 levels pressures on the pen tip and 512 pressures on the eraser.

1 Like

For people possibly wanting a higher-refresh display, has anyone actually tried making a custom resolution with a refresh rate greater than 60Hz?

(just because a display’s EDID is configured to 60Hz at max doesn’t mean it can’t actually run at higher rates - I’ve successfully ran 60Hz laptop displays upwards of 90+Hz without any dropped frames)

1 Like

One of my classmates have one of those cheap gaming laptops. The panel was a 60Hz but the manufacturer “overclocked” it and claimed (90Hz) and higher.

Two months after using it the display is … well it basically was fried and the 90Hz is reduced to blinking at 1Hz. He sent angry messages to the manufacturer and they sent him a proper 90Hz panel at a small charge.
I think there is a max rate that the internal circuitry can run at. Running at higher than factory risk putting unexpected strain on components and break stuff.

1 Like

A 50% overclock sounds exceedingly lucky, most I’ve heard is overclocking displays to 75hz or so, I have no personal experience with it tho

1 Like

I would have been very interested if your classmate actually ran and passed a frame-skipping test as, in my… gosh maybe a decade now? of running custom refresh rates on both desktop and laptop LCDs, I’ve never had such an issue occur.

The only teeny-tiny issue I’ve ran into is that my HP DM1 laptop is able to run at higher refresh rates the warmer it is; so if it’s a cold boot in the middle of winter, anything above 75Hz usually gives visual corruption until the laptop warms up more. But in summer I can “cold” boot straight to 90Hz without issue (the absolute max I’ve gotten it to is 100Hz with custom timings).

I’m just shooting in the dark here, but I would totally believe that the problem occurred because the panel actually wasn’t running at a true 90Hz+ and was skipping frames. I recall some sold-as-overclockable monitors with Monoprice’s branding that in actuality skipped frames when overclocked.

I’ll be honest, the two laptops I’ve managed to run at 90+Hz may have been using TN panels (one of them definitely was, but the other, if it is a TN, is definitely one of the better TNs), and TN is definitely known for its greater ability to hit higher refresh rates.

I’ve not been able to run any other laptops at greater-than-60Hz refresh rates simply because, well, the hardware was too old to even work with custom refresh rates (though I’d be interested in seeing if the newer Crocus Linux driver could change that for my three Intel 965GMA laptops…and I just realized that the ATI 3200-powered Gateway laptop that I mentioned in the “AMD CPUs please” thread obviously would be able to support custom refresh rates, so I should try it on that as well).

Desktop monitors I find to more commonly max out at 75Hz.

1 Like

As a guy that fixes these things I’d settle for just more robust panels. Nothing more dull than a cracked screen.

Any suggestions on that? I genuinely can’t think of a way to create more robust panels except by using gorilla glass or using some sort of protective case like an otterbox

Dunno. I leave tech folks to sort that out. I just know they break too damn easy for the average clumsy user. Better surrounds wouldn’t hurt for a start.

People can carry a few extra grams. Not all of us are feeble.

Not sure there would be much point. What I’ve noticed after a short time with mine is there is a lot of ghosting / trails on moving images even compared to my slow Dell U3014 IPS display. Upping refresh wouldn’t improve the image.

My main interest is for the smoothness and, technically, blur would actually help in that regard.

(see also: AV enthusiasts complaining about “stutter” with 24fps content on OLED TVs due to the insanely-quick pixel response time, especially on the 2018 and older models due to a lack of quality black-frame insertion, and no I don’t mean telecine judder either as all OLED TVs handle 24Hz input without issue (as long as you didn’t use BFI which didn’t even exist before the 2018 models) as that was something solved before OLED TVs were generally available)

For a similar reason, I’m a bit OCD about making the refresh rate a multiple of video frame rates and sometimes there’s a lower limit on displays - for example I find that 48Hz (for 24fps) is much more hit-and-miss than 50Hz (for 25fps and 50fps), so one sometimes needs to use 72Hz anyway.

…also my desktop is a dual-monitor setup with an LCD and CRT monitor so, if I really wanted motion clarity, I wouldn’t even bother with using an LCD (especially since I’m also a junkie regarding black levels and static contrast ratios which is another strength that OLED has over LCD).